Actually, yes you did:There is absolutely NO evidence that one kind/species has evolved into another. No evidence that goo has become fish, has become bird or mammal, has become man. It is cut completely from fabrication.Ã‚Â i.e. macroevolution.

Sorry my friend, we are talking about macroevolution, not age of the earth, so please stay on topic. There is absolutely NO evidence for macroevolution, and to say Ã¢â‚¬Å“macroevolution is true because life has been on earth for 3.5 billion yearsÃ¢â‚¬Â is circular reasoning and faith based. No, there is absolutely NO evidence for one kind/species evolving into another. All the evidence extant is in support of:

And you have provided absolutely NO Ã¢â‚¬Å“contradictory evidenceÃ¢â‚¬Â to the facts IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve stated. YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve only provided the Ã¢â‚¬Å“saying its so, makes it soÃ¢â‚¬Â statements. Macroevolutiuon is magic, because it lacks ANY substantiation.

OK so I started this thread offering answers to questions about evolution.

That is what I intended to do. Ron you seem to have a strange way of debating/discussing a subject. You seem to have changed the topic to one of ......Go on then, show me life springing up out of nothing or a lobster turning into a gorilla...............this is not debate.

You say evolutionists have twisted adaptation to fit the goal of evolution. No it is the fact that adaptation occurs, and the proven mechanism by which it occurs that establishes that evolution happens. If you accept that there is adaptation you must also accept that there is evolution.

There is a vast amount of evidence that species have evolved from common ancestors. DNA sequence homology, embryology, fossil record,anatomy, geology, cosmology, and other sources all provide this evidence and NONE of them provide ANY evidence to the contrary.

Let me turn the tables..................What is the evidence that life on Earth did not evolve over 3.5 billion years?

You have not said anything that I'm sure most of us have already heard.

There is a vast amount of evidence that species have evolved from common ancestors. DNA sequence homology, embryology, fossil record,anatomy, geology, cosmology, and other sources all provide this evidence and NONE of them provide ANY evidence to the contrary.

How have all of these fields proven that we have come from a common ancestor?

You have not said anything that I'm sure most of us have already heard.How have all of these fields proven that we have come from a common ancestor?

To list all the evidence from all these fields and others would take a life time. Much has been distilled into high quality text books and more populist writings on the subject.

Unfortunately it is not possible to distil all the scientific literature into a few sentences.....believe me I wish I could.

Just think on this though. When Einstein first proposed reletivity many in the scientific community sought to disprove or discredit it. The shock came when they couldnt. Einstein showed that Newton was only partially correct and the shock waves in science were enormous.

Imagine what would happen if someone showed that the Earth really was 6000-10000 years old, or that an apes DNA was more like a beetle than another ape.

This evidence just doesnt exist, but all the evidence supporting evolution does exist.

You don't give a solid answer, just that it would take too long to post. Assumptions don't provide facts, they only try to make their case by assuming things and fit what they find. All the fields You mention could be explained by creationists to fit a young earth, but I'm sure You will disagree.

You don't give a solid answer, just that it would take too long to post. Assumptions don't provide facts, they only try to make their case by assuming things and fit what they find. All the fields You mention could be explained by creationists to fit a young earth, but I'm sure You will disagree.

Again You are not sharing anything new with Us, wheres the beef?

No beef. My orinal point was that there seem to be some real misunderstandings about evolution here on this forum.

Ron seems to think evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing, or linked in some way. They are not.

You say creationists can explain all the scientific observations of biology, geology, cosmology etc to fit a young Earth..................I'd love to see that. I've read some young earth creationist literature and none of it has even come close to doing this.

I'll be away for a day or two so may not be able to reply, but do post here any evidence that supports a young (6000-10000) year old Earth hypothesis.

The mechanism of evolution is the same. Mutations that confer a selective advantage in survival and/or breeding eventually spread throughout a population. If that population is an isolated sub group of a species then eventually a new species will result.

It is likely that octopuses that mutated to be able to mimic coral were better survivors and hence more successful breeders. The ability to mimic coral probably took a very long time to develop.

The outcomes you describe are the results of evolution at work.

Natural selection is a real process, but how did the mimicking behavior get into the DNA and passed down to offspring? There have been experiments... for example animals have their tails cut off for vast numbers of generations and their offspring are still born with tails.

There are still many things science cannot explain very well if at all. My problem is that religion doesnt even attempt to explain them.

Like what?

I don't think I have made any faith statements. A faith statement is made when the statement has no supporting evidence to back it up. There is a vast amount of evidence to support the age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years and that life has existed and evolved on Erath for 3.5billion years.

That one species can evolve into another as a result of isolation and natural selection is supported by millions of separate pieces of evidence, with zero contradictory evidence. Does that make it a fact?Ã‚Â I don't know, but it is far more likely than magic.

OK so I started this thread offering answers to questions about evolution.

That is what I intended to do. Ron you seem to have a strange way of debating/discussing a subject. You seem to have changed the topic to one ofÃ‚Â ......Go on then, show me life springing up out of nothing or a lobster turning into a gorilla...............this is not debate.

You say evolutionists have twisted adaptation to fit the goal of evolution. No it is the fact that adaptation occurs, and the proven mechanism by which it occurs that establishes that evolution happens. If you accept that there is adaptation you must also accept that there is evolution.

There is a vast amount of evidence that species have evolved from common ancestors. DNA sequence homology, embryology, fossil record,anatomy, geology, cosmology, and other sources all provide this evidence and NONE of them provide ANY evidence to the contrary.

Let me turn the tables..................What is the evidence that life on Earth did not evolve over 3.5 billion years?Please note I'm talking about evolution not abiogenesis.

If you have indeed read plenty of Young Earth literature you would know that evidence for Natural Selection, mutation, and speciation all support YE theories... Animals start out as kinds. There are many species that all arose from the Elephant kind for example. There is evidence of rapid adaptation and speciation... much more rapid than evolutionists claim. There are animals that belong to different genera within the same kind that are able to mate. Perhaps we can help each other. I am trying to understand your viewpoint but that book that I have read recently did no good. Do you have another suggestion? I can suggest books about YE theory that may help you as well.

To list all the evidence from all these fields and others would take a life time. Much has been distilled into high quality text books and more populist writings on the subject.

Unfortunately it is not possible to distil all the scientific literature into a few sentences.....believe me I wish I could.

Just think on this though.Ã‚Â When Einstein first proposed reletivity many in the scientific community sought to disprove or discredit it. The shock came when they couldnt. Einstein showed that Newton was only partially correct and the shock waves in science were enormous.

Imagine what would happen if someone showed that the Earth really was 6000-10000 years old, or that an apes DNA was more like a beetle than another ape.

This evidence just doesnt exist, but all the evidence supporting evolution does exist.

Well, actually Kangaroos have DNA very very similar to man, enough to shock people... but they aren't giving us the details. I wonder why?

No beef. My orinal point was that there seem to be some real misunderstandings about evolution here on this forum.

Ron seems to think evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing, or linked in some way. They are not.

You say creationists can explain all the scientific observations of biology, geology, cosmology etc to fit a young Earth..................I'd love to see that. I've read some young earth creationist literature and none of it has even come close to doing this.

I'll be away for a day or two so may not be able to reply, but do post here any evidence that supports a young (6000-10000) year old Earth hypothesis.

There are geological formations that are explained with a YE view that evolution has no answer for. They do not see these things forming today.

A YE view also has a viable explanation for what caused (started) the ice age. Do you?

I have vast amounts of articles supporting the Flood of Noah's day. Soft bodied fossils encased in limestone (so much for the vast amounts of time that it takes limestone to form). Human remains found under strata dated at 100 million years old... How about some of those? Or articles that show rapid adaptation and speciation? Or articles that quote Darwin and then disprove what he said? Or proof that animals of different species and genera can mate? How about dinosaur bones with protein or blood cells?

Reading Creation magazine will give you this evidence, backed up with references.

Here is a good place to start: Creation Magazine Volume 32 No. 2 2010 28Ã¢â‚¬â€œ31 Geologic catastrophe and the young earthTas Walker talks to Steve Austin about his research career in Flood geology

Natural selection is a real process, but how did the mimicking behavior get into the DNA and passed down to offspring? There have been experiments... for example animals have their tails cut off for vast numbers of generations and their offspring are still born with tails.Like what?If you have indeed read plenty of Young Earth literature you would know that evidence for Natural Selection, mutation, and speciation all support YE theories... Animals start out as kinds. There are many species that all arose from the Elephant kind for example. There is evidence of rapid adaptation and speciation... much more rapid than evolutionists claim. There are animals that belong to different genera within the same kind that are able to mate. Well, actually Kangaroos have DNA very very similar to man, enough to shock people... but they aren't giving us the details. I wonder why?There are geological formations that are explained with a YE view that evolution has no answer for. They do not see these things forming today.

A YE view also has a viable explanation for what caused (started) the ice age. Do you?

I have vast amounts of articles supporting the Flood of Noah's day. Soft bodied fossils encased in limestone (so much for the vast amounts of time that it takes limestone to form). Human remains found under strata dated at 100 million years old... How about some of those? Or articles that show rapid adaptation and speciation? Or articles that quote Darwin and then disprove what he said? Or proof that animals of different species and genera can mate?

Reading Creation magazine will give you this evidence, backed up with references.

OH dear I only have time for the first sentence "how did the mimicking behavior get into the DNA and passed down to offspring"

Answer ..... it didnt and no evolutionist would argue that it did.

The ability to mimic behaviour comes from having a central nervous system of sufficient complexity. That is encoded in DNA and has evolved over time. Learned behaviour is just that, learned behaviour

OK so I started this thread offering answers to questions about evolution.

And I asked questions about evolutions origins! Which, by the way IS a part of evolution regardless of the evolutionists never-ending need to attempt to duck it.

That is what I intended to do. Ron you seem to have a strange way of debating/discussing a subject.

No, I am keeping you on point, and not allowing you to wriggle free of your original point. You intimated that you had all the answers, and I asked a relatively simplistic one; What are the origins of evolution? I did add the caveat of your needing only reply with empirical fact based information. Because, after all, you said you have the answers. And you go by the moniker Ã¢â‚¬Å“truthÃ¢â‚¬Â, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“TruthÃ¢â‚¬Â defined is that which corresponds with reality! Therefore, provide some reality!

You seem to have changed the topic to one of ......Go on then, show me life springing up out of nothing or a lobster turning into a gorilla...............this is not debate.

I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t change the topic at all, I am simply holding you to task for what you said. Which, by the way, you have failed so far to do.

You say evolutionists have twisted adaptation to fit the goal of evolution. No it is the fact that adaptation occurs, and the proven mechanism by which it occurs that establishes that evolution happens. If you accept that there is adaptation you must also accept that there is evolution.

It is a fact that adaptation occurs, period. But Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â (especially macroevolution) on the other hand, is fictitious (as it related to adaptation) and specious at best. Why call adaptation evolution, when adaptation fully describes what happens, and the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â is of recent manufacture, and only on hand to promulgate the model of evolution in the first place!

There is a vast amount of evidence that species have evolved from common ancestors. DNA sequence homology, embryology, fossil record,anatomy, geology, cosmology, and other sources all provide this evidence and NONE of them provide ANY evidence to the contrary.

Then provide your Ã¢â‚¬Å“vast amountsÃ¢â‚¬Â of evidence! Simply saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s so doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make it so! And, I will Ã¢â‚¬Å“warnÃ¢â‚¬Â you for the last time to read the forum rules before you post again.

Please note I'm talking about evolution not abiogenesis.

Please note both are fictitious, but for one to be true, it would have to be proceeded by the other. Which, of course , makes them interrelated and therefore interdependent. Evolution, for it to be true, must have origins! And those origins are a part of it, so quit ducking that fact.

Please note both are fictitious, but for one to be true, it would have to be proceeded by the other. Which, of course , makes them interrelated and therefore interdependent. Evolution, for it to be true, must have origins! And those origins are a part of it, so quit ducking that fact.

Where do I begin with pointing out the fallacies? I guess I'll start with this interesting assertion that in order for evolution to exist, it had to start with abiogenesis. For one, I think that every theist who believes in a god that can do anything would disagree with you. Secondly, there is a wide range of possibilities for the origins of life, many of which have nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution.I really think that the problem with the criteria for evidence is that many people don't know what would constitute sufficient evidence to consider a theory believable. It seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the systems involved, in this case: biological systems. Then again, it is very subjective. For example, to me, a good case for common origin is knowing the basis of genetic processes and observing 4 functional alpha-hemoglobin genes and 3 pseudogenes, and then observing that this is the case with "related" species on phylogenetic trees (designed from DNA sequencing, stratigraphy, biogeography, and/or many other methods that have resulted in a "family tree" of species) while increasing in differences as the "relatedness" decreases. There are many other examples, but given what you currently know about the modern theory of evolution, what do you think we should be able to observe that would convince you?

I guess I'll start with this interesting assertion that in order for evolution to exist, it had to start with abiogenesis.

No, in order for evolution to exist, it had to have origins. Abiogenesis is the only answer atheistic evolutionists have to hang their hats on. But I am more than open for other suggestions, as abiogenesis isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even a cogent explanation.

For one, I think that every theist who believes in a god that can do anything would disagree with you.

Not if they claim to be Christian, and read the Bible (example; to know what a Christian is; read what Ã¢â‚¬Å“JesusÃ¢â‚¬Â says a Ã¢â‚¬Å“ChristianÃ¢â‚¬Â is). But other theologians have every bit the right to their religion as anyone elseÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Even atheists.

Secondly, there is a wide range of possibilities for the origins of life, many of which have nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution.

Again, you errÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ If evolution were to be real, it absolutely HAS to have origins, there is NO escaping that factÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ PERIOD!

Evolution doesnt have origins. It's simply the natural result of any system capable of self reproduction and change over time, in the same way that a liquid in zero-G will naturally form a sphere. What you're asking about is the origin of life, so that the process of evolution had something to operate on.

Evolution doesnt have origins. It's simply the natural result of any system capable of self reproduction and change over time, in the same way that a liquid in zero-G will naturally form a sphere. What you're asking about is the origin of life, so that the process of evolution had something to operate on.

That's probably the simplest and most concise definition of evolution I have ever heard.

Then evolution doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist. Everything that has been caused to exist has origins.

Evolution isn't meant to explain why life arose, it explains why life is diverse. Germ theory doesn't discuss the origin of germs either.Abiogenesis hasn't reached the level of theory yet, but it's currently the best explanation we have.

It's better to keep trying to learn new things than just saying "God did it" and never trying to solve the mystery. To quote Richard Feynmann: "Scientists love not knowing".

Evolution isn't meant to explain why life arose, it explains why life is diverse.

For evolution to exist, it MUST have origins. And those origins are a part of evolution, for evolution to existÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Period! To run from those facts, is to ignore a part of evolution (if it exists).

Germ theory doesn't discuss the origin of germs either.

No, germ theory is the explanation of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“originsÃ¢â‚¬Â of diseases. But it still requires an understanding of the origins of said Contagions (i.e. where does the germs come from)! I guarantee the scholastic and scientific endeavor into germ theory involves studies into origins of said contagions (i.e. what causes them).

Abiogenesis hasn't reached the level of theory yet, but it's currently the best explanation we have.

It's better to keep trying to learn new things than just saying "God did it" and never trying to solve the mystery.

It's better to keep trying to learn new things (like the origins of evolution, if it indeed exists) than just saying "Evolution did it", or Ã¢â‚¬Å“ Nature did itÃ¢â‚¬Â and never trying to solve the mystery (of the origins of evolution, if it indeed exists).

To quote Richard Feynmann: "Scientists love not knowing".

That is a fact. But we love learning and discovering quite a bit more!